Apparently, the acoustic weapons are here

Using non lethal weapons to defend against pirates firing machine guns and RPGs? Is that politically correct self defense these days? How come the French are not so equipped? Or are they but it would offend the rioting Muslims that they be treated this way while trying to show their dissatisfaction with the government.

--

    Boris Mohar

Hmm, down to 107dB SPL max power at 200 meters. I wonder if using earplugs or ear protectors might be an effective countermeasure? It's said we can safely handle 115dB for 15 min/day with an unprotected ear, although noise above 140dB "isn't permitted."

--
 Thanks,
    - Win

and

I understood they tried to ram the craft. Maybe they just scared the parrots.

Cheers.

ken

I read in sci.electronics.design that Winfield Hill wrote (in ) about 'Apparently, the acoustic weapons are here', on Wed, 9 Nov 2005:

Or even moving sideways a bit. The beam is quite narrow. I'd go for something we avoid like the plague in sound reinforcement - a daisy-shaped directional response, with multiple high-level lobes in the forward direction. You read it here first.

107 dB is lower than pop-concert levels. The emission is probably a narrow-band slow warble with two dissonant frequency components. This is unpleasant and disrupts voice-communication but is not disabling, especially after you have been exposed to it a few times (and I don't mean that's because it's made you permanently deaf!).

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
If everything has been designed, a god designed evolution by natural selection.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

Hi Win, Rap 'music' at half that SPL would be equally effective *and* more efficient.

--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd" - William Blake

Not so narrow at 50 to 200 meters, but not so powerful either.

Yes, it doesn't seem to me this would be enough to deter determined attackers. It's not that much more powerful at 100 meters (112dB) or 50 meters (117dB). I think they're using parametric projection, an interesting technology I've written about on s.e.d. several times over the last 10 years, which gets the audio frequency from the in-air mixing of two ultrasound signals. It's primary advantage is a "narrow" beam without requiring huge mirrors or other focussing stuff. One disadvantage is a considerable sound-level loss in the conversion, hence the lack of a more powerful output.

The LRAD company might prefer to hearing the attackers were driven off by their LRAD product, but surely the prospect of extending a high-speed chase while fearing re-inforcements were coming was the deciding factor.

--
 Thanks,
    - Win

I'm giving the kids in my neighborhood 3 months until they install this equipment in their low rider Hondas.

--
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: This publication is the sole property of monkey #108765
and his typewriter. It does not represent the opinions of any other
primate, either alive or dead, or any descendants thereof.

Arrrghhh!!

--
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
The world is coming to an end.  Please log off.

I read in sci.electronics.design that Winfield Hill wrote (in ) about 'Apparently, the acoustic weapons are here', on Wed, 9 Nov 2005:

Well, maybe, but at 33 inches diameter and a non-planar (presumably parabolic) radiating surface, the thing is quite big enough to focus mid-range baseband audio, say 1 kHz, into a 30 degree beam, even measured at the -20 dB points. But, as I said before, I think that's a bit narrow for best deterrence.

"LRAD is a flat panel, multi-transducer, phase coherent emitter"

That doesn't suggest parametric projection to me. And with 500 W input and no need to reproduce bass frequencies, the sound level they achieve seems a bit modest. However, making the thing soldier- and weather-proof may be a factor.

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
If everything has been designed, a god designed evolution by natural selection.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

Nope, they would like RAP, maybe György Ligeti or a symphony for Bagpipes, or even a Maggie Thatcher speach

martin

I read in sci.electronics.design that martin griffith wrote (in ) about 'Apparently, the acoustic weapons are here', on Wed, 9 Nov 2005:

Karl-Heinz Stockhausen; lethal at 1000 m. (;-)

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
If everything has been designed, a god designed evolution by natural selection.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

Forgot about KHS, fortunately preferably backwards, at 7 1/2 ips mono on a EMI TR90. dunno if you could tell the difference though

martin

the deciding factor. My biker/accountant dude, just used earplugs to drown out the noise from his Fireblade. ISTR that there was about 30dB attenuation, midband. 10$ to nulllify a dubious weapon, good value for money. Bet the pirates get them in stock soon. The criminals are often more creative than the "enforcement oriented" bunch of PHBs.

martin

martin griffith wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

An article I read today said the cruise ship also used fire hoses. Too bad they couldn't add some irritant or nausea chemical to the water spray.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Try telling that to a Breton Bombarde player.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Well, to be politically incorrect...

Maybe the acoustic weapon was simply some rap music played over the PA. That would drive off just about anybody. As for the pirates, ever look at the pics? They're sitting in a little dingy trying to get close to a monster ship... Maybe they're just retarded...(stupid)

:-)

Phil allison?

martin

Why mess about - use Smith and Wesson

It'd probably be considered "cruel and unusual" by Greenpeace or some such. ;-)

Cheers! Rich